language use and attitudes as indicators of subjective

Vol. 15 (2021), pp. 190–218http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc

http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24973Revised Version Received: 1 Dec 2020

Language use and attitudes as indicators of subjectivevitality: The Iban of Sarawak, Malaysia

Su-Hie TingUniversiti Malaysia Sarawak

Andyson TinggangUniversiti Malaysia Sarawak

Lilly MetomUniversiti Teknologi of MARA

The study examined the subjective ethnolinguistic vitality of an Iban communityin Sarawak, Malaysia based on their language use and attitudes. A survey of 200respondents in the Song district was conducted. To determine the objective eth-nolinguistic vitality, a structural analysis was performed on their sociolinguisticbackgrounds. The results show the Iban language dominates in family, friend-ship, transactions, religious, employment, and education domains. The languageuse patterns show functional differentiation into the Iban language as the “lowlanguage” and Malay as the “high language”. The respondents have positive at-titudes towards the Iban language. The dimensions of language attitudes thatare strongly positive are use of the Iban language, Iban identity, and intergenera-tional transmission of the Iban language. The marginally positive dimensions areinstrumental use of the Iban language, social status of Iban speakers, and prestigevalue of the Iban language. Inferential statistical tests show that language atti-tudes are influenced by education level. However, language attitudes and use ofthe Iban language are not significantly correlated. By viewing language use andattitudes from the perspective of ethnolinguistic vitality, this study has revealedthat a numerically dominant group assumed to be safe from language shift hasonly medium vitality, based on both objective and subjective evaluation.

1. Introduction Research on language shift has focused on the receding languageto describe the domains taken over by replacing languages. Many studies are under-pinned by Fishman’s (1972) domain theory on language use. In Malaysia, for exam-ple, studies have shown the displacement of indigenous and Chinese languages bydominant languages, notably standard languages taught in school.1 One such group

1English and the Malay language are taught in all Malaysian schools from the first year of primary ed-ucation. The institutional support for Malay as the national and the official language of Malaysia andthe medium of instruction endangers the vitality of indigenous languages because the school language be-comes the home language for a portion of the community. In Malaysia, children enter primary schoolwhen they are seven years old (primary one), and primary education is from primary one to primary six.After six years of primary education, they have five years of secondary education. Students enter secondary

Licensed under Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International

E-ISSN 1934-5275

http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc

http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24973

Language use and attitudes as indicators of subjective vitality: The Iban of Sarawak, Malaysia 191

is the Bidayuh who make up 7.81 percent of the Sarawak population of 2,789,000(DOSM 2017a). Sarawak is a Malaysian state located on the Borneo KalimantanIsland, and it is the ancestral home of the Bidayuh, Iban, and several other Indige-nous groups such as the Kayan, Kejaman, and Sihan. Many urban Bidayuh dwellersin mixed marriages have adopted Sarawak Malay Dialect for family communication(Coluzzi, Riget, & Wang 2013; Dealwis 2008; David & Dealwis 2009; Norahim2010; Ting & Mahadhir 2009). Language shift has also been found among theKayan (Wan, Renganathan, & Bromeley 2015; Wan, Renganathan, & Ting 2014),Kejaman (Joan & Ting 2016, 2017), and the Sihan (Mohamed & Hashim 2012). Bycontrast, the Iban language is still in vigorous use among the Iban community, andit is also spoken by some people who are not Iban for buying-and-selling interac-tions in markets (Ting & Ling 2012). Coluzzi’s (2010) study showed that Iban hasa strong linguistic vitality in Temburong, Brunei (a country adjacent to Sarawak onthe Borneo Kalimantan Island) due to endogamy, close-knit social networks, demo-graphic strength, and support from associations and official institutions in Sarawak(e.g., radio programmes). The use of Iban by other ethnic groups, though limited, isprobably because the Iban group is the largest ethnic group in Sarawak, accountingfor 28.60% of the state population (DOSM 2017a), and the Iban people are spreadthroughout the state (Appendix 1).

The Iban language is aMalayic language, like Sebuyau, Kendayan, Balau, Selakau,and Sarawak Malay Dialect (Adelaar 2004). Malayic languages are a sub-branch ofSunda-Sulawesi languages, which is a branch of Malay-Polynesian languages, in thefamily of Austronesian languages. Malayic languages are further divided into Ibaniclanguages,Malayic languages, and Urak Lawoi languages. The Iban language spokenin Sarawak, Brunei, and Kalimantan belong to the Ibanic branch which is confinedto the Borneo Kalimantan Island. The Malayic and Urak Lawoi languages are saidto originate from Borneo but migration brought the languages to neighbouring lands.The Malayic language was brought to Sumatra, and the Urak Lawoi languages werebrought to West Malaysia. As both Iban and Sarawak Malay Dialect belong to theMalayic subgroup, the linguistic similarity makes it easier for Iban speakers to adoptSarawak Malay Dialect for daily use.

Many studies concentrate on languages of smaller groups that are being displacedbecause of language shift and possible language death, and investigating the languagemilieu can provide the empirical findings for work on language maintenance. The lan-guage use of larger ethnic groups tends to be given less attention, as the languagesare perceived to be immune from language shift. The Iban are the largest ethnicgroup in Sarawak, giving rise to the assumption that there is language maintenance.This is why the Iban language has escaped the attention of sociolinguists interestedin Indigenous languages. The available literature is mainly on the Iban culture (e.g.,

school at Form One level at 13 years old. Towards the end of the school year in Form Three, students sitfor the Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR, Lower Secondary Assessment), a public examination held bythe Ministry of Education. Students then study in Form Four and Form Five before sitting for a publicexamination, Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM,Malaysian Certificate of Education). The SPM results will de-termine whether they can enter the lower sixth form. At the end of the school year in the upper sixth form,the students sit for the Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM, Malaysian Higher School Certificate)examination. The STPM results are used to apply for a place in universities.

Language Documentation & Conservation Vol. 15, 2021


Berma 2008; Saleh 2008; Sebli 2008), and there are some conceptual papers (Philip2017) but few empirical studies on the Iban language (Coluzzi 2010; Cullip 2000;Mohamed 1991; Ting 2010, 2012; Ting & Ling 2012). The Remun language (anIban dialect) is still used for family communication in Kampong Remun despite fre-quent intermarriages between the Remun and the Iban people (Cullip 2000). Thefunctional differentiation for the use of the Remun language is as follows: Remunand SarawakMalay Dialect (for interactions with non-Remuns) function as“low lan-guages”, and the Iban language, English, andMalay (for formal interactions) functionas “high languages” in the village. The Remun language is maintained because of astrong Remun identity, historical distrust of the Iban people, and the informal use ofthe Remun language in school (Cullip 2000). However, as time passes, the distrusttowards Iban people may lessen with frequent intermarriages, creating a shift to theIban language or other languages. Ting and Ling (2012) surveyed 568 indigeneousadolescents in six locations (rural and urban) in Sarawak, of which 323 respondentsare Iban adolescents. The results showed that the Iban adolescents speak the Ibanlanguage the most (47.49%), followed by Malay and Sarawak Malay (35.04%), En-glish (15.02%), and Mandarin and Chinese dialects (2.46%). The Iban language ismainly used in the family, friendship, and religious domains and less in transactional(markets and shops) and educational domains. As for the mass media domain (radio,television, movies, online communication), Malay is the main language, followed byEnglish, but Iban is not used. This result shows that languages with institutional sup-port may contribute to language shift of Iban. Further analysis of the same set of dataon the Iban adolescents’ language use revealed that they frequently speak Malay andSarawak Malay because a majority of them have Malay and Chinese friends (Ting2012). These findings (Joan&Ting 2016; Ting& Ling 2012) indicate that among theadolescents, Iban may no longer be the language for interethnic communication; nowMalay and Sarawak Malay function as the languages for interethnic communication.

We argue that it is important to study the language dynamics of numerically dom-inant groups to find out what makes them withstand the tide of shifting towardsstandard languages2 and to assess whether language shift is happening. Research hasshown that large groups are not safe from language shift. For example, Foochowis the largest Chinese dialect group in Sarawak, and the group is experiencing lan-guage shift not only in towns that they have migrated to but also in towns whereFoochow was once the lingua franca among the Chinese (Puah & Ting 2013; Ting2010; Ting & Hung 2008; Ting & Mahadhir 2009; Ting & Sussex 2002). TheFoochow are not lacking in status variables; its speakers are among the renownedowners of family businesses in Sarawak (Ting 2017), and they also have substantialinfluence in state politics. Yet, they are shifting to Mandarin or English. Another Chi-nese dialect, Hokkien, is being displaced by Mandarin (Puah & Ting 2013). Thereare speech communities like the Chinese Foochow in Sarawak which are experienc-ing non-intergenerational transmission of their ethnic language in many families be-cause it is acceptable if they cannot speak the language. They call themselves “halfFoochow” and “Foochow who cannot speak Foochow” to claim membership in the

2See Footnote 1.



Foochow ethnic group but do not know or do not wish to speak their ethnic lan-guage (Ting & Rose 2014). In another study on language attitudes (Puah & Ting2015) in Sarawak, an indirect language attitudes measure (matched guise technique)was used to examine hidden dimensions of language attitudes. The female Hokkienand Foochow speakers reported a stronger solidarity with Mandarin speakers thanpeople who speak their ethnic language. The respondents of the two studies are thesame, but when direct measures like questionnaires are used (Ting & Puah 2015),the respondents often report positive attitudes towards maintenance of their ethniclanguage, perhaps due to social desirability bias. This gives rise to the scenario wherepositive language attitudes are professed but not supported by use of the language.

The present study examines the subjective ethnolinguistic vitality based on the lan-guage use and attitudes of the Iban people living in an Iban-dominant area in Sarawak,Malaysia. The specific aspects studied are: (1) language use of the Iban respondentsin the family, friendship, transaction, religion, work, and education domains; (2) theIban respondents’ attitudes towards the Iban language; and (3) relationship betweendemographic characteristics, use of the Iban language, and attitudes towards the Ibanlanguage. The study was conducted in Song, an Iban-dominant town that has beentraditionally the ancestral homeground of the Iban people in Sarawak. In this paper,the term “ethnic language” refers to the Iban language or the respective languages ofthe ethnic groups concerned. “Malay” refers to the the standardised variety (BahasaMalaysia) whereas “Sarawak Malay” refers to the regional variety of Malay spokenin Sarawak.

2. Theoretical framework of study The theoretical framework of the study is Giles,Taylor, & Bourhis’s (1977) taxonomy of structural factors affecting ethnolinguisticvitality, taken from the field of social psychology. After almost half a century, Giles etal.’s (1977) taxonomy is still relevant for explaining language shift and endangerment(Sosiowati et al. 2019; Aravossitas 2020). The vitality of an ethnolinguistic group isdefined as factors “which make a group likely to behave as a distinctive and activecollective entity in intergroup situations”and can be assessed from available sociolog-ical and demographic information on three structural factors, namely demographicvariables, institutional support, and status variables (Giles et al. 1977: 308). An eth-nolinguistic group is thus a group that behaves as a distinctive entity in intergroupsituations.

The explanation of the structural factors affecting objective ethnolinguistic vital-ity is based on Giles et al. (1977: 309–318). Firstly, the evaluation of demographicvariables considers the population number and distribution throughout the territory.The population number takes into account absolute birth rate, mixed marriages, im-migration, and emigration. The distribution takes into account national territory,concentration, and proportion. Secondly, the institutional support variables refer tothe extent to which the group receives formal and informal representation in the var-ious institutions of a nation, region, or community such as government, church, andbusiness. Institutions that may provide institutional support are mass media, educa-tion, government services, industry, religion, and culture. Thirdly, the status variables



pertain to a configuration of prestige variables of the group in the intergroup context,encompassing economic status, social status, sociohistorical status, and the languagestatus both within the group and outside the group.

Giles et al. (1977: 317) stated that it is important to carefully evaluate “the com-bined effects of the three main (and possibly other) factors” to“determine the relativevitality of an ethnolinguistic group”. For groups that are high on some variables butlow on others, the group is evaluated as having medium vitality. Groups with veryhigh vitality can survive as a viable group and behave as a distinctive and active col-lective entity in intergroup situations. Giles et al. (1977) also pointed out that theevaluation of the combined effects of the three structural factors produces an ob-jective vitality, but whether groups can thrive as a collective entity also depends on“whether group members perceive subjectively their situation along exactly the samelines” (318).

3. Objective ethnolinguistic vitality of the Iban language This section discusses theoutcomes of the evaluation of structural factors using Giles et al.’s (1977) taxonomyof objective ethnolinguistic vitality when applied to the Iban context.

Firstly, in terms of demographic variables, vitality of the Iban language is strongbecause the Iban are the largest ethnic group in Sarawak, an East Malaysian statelocated on Borneo Kalimantan Island (Table 1). Appendix 1 shows the Iban peopleare distributed throughout Sarawak.

Table 1. Population of ethnic groups in Song and the state of Sarawak (DOSM 2017a)

Ethnic groupSarawak state population Song population

Population Percentage Population Percentage

Iban 797,600 28.6 20,400 87.55Malay 639,300 22.92 800 3.43Chinese 623,700 22.36 1,000 4.29Bidayuh 217,800 7.81 100 0.43Melanau 142,300 5.1 200 0.86Other Indigenous 178,600 6.4 300 1.29Indian and others 16,300 0.58 200 0.86Non-Malaysian citizen 173,400 6.22 300 1.29

Total 2,789,000 99.99 23,300 100

The metrics used for the evaluation of the institutional support for Iban, basedon Giles et al. (1977) as explained in the previous section, include education, govern-ment, mass media, religion, business, and culture. The Iban language enjoys betterinstitutional support than other indigeneous groups in Sarawak. The Iban language istaught as a subject in the national education system, but other Indigenous languageshave not been introduced as a subject in school. In 2008, the Iban language was intro-duced as an elective examination subject at Sijil Pelajaran Malaysian (Malaysian Cer-tificate of Education) level for Form 5 students. The school statistics for 2008 show



that the Iban language was taught as a language subject in 367 (29.08% of 1,262)primary schools since 1968 and 55 (or 31.07% of 177) secondary schools (Ting &Tensing 2010; CEIC Data 2020). The number of primary schools offering Iban as alanguage subject has increased to 374 in 2010 and 1,264 in 2015, whereas the num-ber of secondry schools offering Iban as a language subject has fluctuated between 50in 2010 and 52 in 2015 (Ting & Campbell 2017). Most of the schools are located inKapit, Sibu, Sri Aman, and Sarikei divisions where there is a sizable Iban population.Ting and Ling (2012) ranked the Iban language at Level 5 of the Expanded Inter-generational Disruption Scale (EGIDS, Lewis & Simons 2010), mainly because thereis institutional support for written literacy in the Iban language. Level 5 on EGIDSmeans that literacy has been introduced but not acquired by most community mem-bers. In addition, the Iban language is offered as an undergraduate programme intwo teachers’ institutes in Sarawak. In Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, the Ibanlanguage is offered as a minor to the Iban students majoring in Malay Studies (Philip2017).

In addition to institutional support in the education system, the Iban languagealso receives institutional support from the government, the media, and religious bod-ies. In the State Legislative Assembly proceedings in Sarawak, the Iban language isallowed to be used after permission is obtained from the Honourable Speaker, andsimultaneous interpreting will be provided during the sittings (Philip 2017) and in thehansard. Several Sarawak-based newspapers have an Iban language section, such as,for example, Utusan Malaysia and The Borneo Post. There is also an Iban broadcastover RTM WaiFM, TVi RTM Sarawak, and Cats Radio, and the Pegari magazine ispublished regularly (Philip 2017). Some churches still conduct Sunday services in theIban language.

Informal institutional support for the Iban language is also given by institutionsestablished to preserve the Iban language and culture. For example, Tun Jugah Foun-dation has carried out preservation works on the Iban language and culture (Philip2017). The Foundation was named after Jugah anak Barieng who was one of thefounding fathers of the Federation of Malaysia. The Foundation has archives ofhistorical materials on the Iban and galleries and museums to showcase Iban arti-facts. The Foundation has also supported research on Iban oral history, organisedexhibitions of Iban fabric and weaving demonstrations, and encouraged weavers toplant natural dye plants like engkudu (morinda), engkerebai, and renggat/tarum (in-digofera) (Tun Jugah Foundation 2014). Jugah anak Barieng initiated the establish-ment of Majlis Adat Istiadat Sarawak (Council for Customs and Traditions) in Oc-tober 1974. The Sarawak State Assembly passed the Majlis Adat Istiadat SarawakOrdinance on December 13, 1977 which accorded Majlis Adat Istiadat the preroga-tive to advise the state government on the customary laws of the natives of Sarawak(Majlis Adat Istiadat Sarawak 2020). According to Philip (2017), Majlis Adat Istia-dat Sarawak owns some documentation work on literary, ritualistic, and customaryaspects of the Iban society. Based on the extent of formal and informal representa-tion of the Iban people in various institutions, the Iban language can be consideredto have strong institutional support.



The third ethnolinguistic variable, status, refers to the ethnic group’s sociohis-torical prestige, social and economic status, and the status of the languages usedby speakers locally and internationally. In terms of sociohistorical prestige, there aresome historical incidents that are used as mobilising symbols to bind the Iban commu-nity together. Giles et al. (1977) did not give examples of these distinctive historicalevents, but we posit that historical events can include wars and other historical oc-casions that affect the community. Historically, the Iban people have a reputation aswarriors who engaged in headhunting, piracy, and territory wars (SCB 2020). Thereare societal figures among the Iban community which remind the present-day Ibanof their heroic past. Rentap (born Libau anak Ningkan, a.k.a. Libau Rentap) was anIban warrior and hero in Sarawak known for resisting the first White Rajah’s (colo-nial) attempts to control Skrang and Saribas areas in Sarawak. Besides Rentap, theIban people also consider Jugah anak Barieng and Stephen Kalong Ningkan (who be-came the first Chief Minister of Sarawak) as their heroes (Janggang 2011). Mentionof these Iban heroes can serve to reinforce the Iban identity and their shared history.

On the social status of the Iban people, the Iban community is of good socialstanding as there are high profile Ibans among politicians, academics, and commu-nity groups. At the state government level, the Iban people are represented in the statecabinet. A condition agreed upon during the formation of Malaysia is that one of theDeputy Chief Ministers of the Sarawak has to be from the Indigenous groups. How-ever, the economic status of the Iban people is not as favourable. There are a few large-scale entrepreneurs among them, but the majority are in the low income groups, re-ferred to as B403 inMalaysia. Some information on this can be gleaned from the back-ground of Ting’s (2012) respondents, whereby 77.87% of the 324 Iban adolescents’parents earn less than RM2000 per month (approximately USD450 at an exchangerate of 1USD=RM4.44), 11.78% RM2000–RM3999, 6.17% RM4000–RM5990,and 4.32% RM6000 and above. Based on the census data for household income,a majority of the Iban adolescents’ parents in Ting’s (2012) study are in the B40.Ting’s (2012) finding that a large proportion of the Iban families are in the low in-come bracket is indicative because the study was conducted in six schools throughoutSarawak (three schools in rural areas and three schools in urban areas). Another studyconducted among 198 Iban households in three selected Iban longhouses (Berendam,Jalan, and Unting) in Durin town, near Sibu showed that the mean household incomewas RM1041 (Aung et al. 2018). The socio-economic situation of the Iban grouphas not changed much over the years, as shown by reports on the income of the Ibanpeople living in rural areas in the 1970s and 1980s. In the Julau area near Sarikeitown, Cramb & Dian’s (1979) survey conducted in 1976 showed that more than halfof the Iban households surveyed had an average household income of about RM66(as cited in King 1986). The average monthly household income of the Iban peopleliving in the Batang Ai area near Sri Aman town was RM75 in 1977 (Cramb 1979, ascited in King 1986). In a 1982 survey in the Kalaka-Saribas area near Betong town,

3The B40 (Bottom 40%) are defined as households with an income of RM3,855 and below in 2014 (UNDP2020). The average monthly household income of the B40 group is at RM2,848, while the M40 group(Middle 40%) and T20 group (Top 20%) have average incomes of RM6,502 and RM16,088 respectively(DOSM 2017b).



56.8% per cent of 823 Iban households had a monthly income of below RM166(Tambi 1982, as cited in King 1986). The low monthly income of the Iban people inrural areas is due to their reliance on farming, and in urban areas, it is due to the lowsalary of blue-collar workers.

As for language status, the Iban language is not a language of international or na-tional status, but within the state of Sarawak, the Iban language appears to have moresocio-historical significance and public visibility than other Indigenous languages be-cause Iban words are used in songs, speeches, and banners while those of other In-digenous languages are not. For example, Rentap’s battlecry was “Agi Idup, Agi Nge-laban!!” (“I will fight as long I will live!”) which was adopted by Malaysia’s RoyalRanger Regiment as their motto (“Iban customs and traditions” n.d.). Rentap’s bat-tlecry now also appears on car stickers and is used in speeches, evoking the warriorspirit of the Iban people. “Oo-ha”, an Iban call to celebration, popularised by thefifth chief minister of Sarawak (Adenan Satem) was used in his speeches to say“hello”and to motivate the crowd (Cheng 2016). From this evaluation of objective ethno-linguistic vitality, it seems that the Iban language is medium on status variables butstrong in terms of the demographic and institutional support variables. Therefore,overall, the Iban language has medium to strong vitality.

4. Method of the study The study was conducted in Song, a town situated alongthe upper reaches of the Rejang River, before the towns of Kapit and Belaga, in theKapit division. In Song, the Iban community is even more dominant, accounting for87.55% of the Song population (see Table 1).

4.1 Respondents The study involved 200 Iban respondents living in Song, Kapitdivision. Their average age is 31.6 (range: 13 – 85). Their occupations range fromfarmers to teachers and government officers. Table 2 shows the respondents’ demo-graphic characteristics. An important selection criterion is that the respondents musthave at least one parent who is Iban and must be able to speak the Iban language. Toensure that the respondents can understand the questionnaire, they must be at least12 years old, or at least Form One in secondary school.

4.2 Instrument The printed questionnaire had sections on demographic character-istics, language use according to domain, and language attitudes. For gender, binaryoptions (female/male) were given. The language use section focused on six domains:family, friendship, transactions, religion, employment, and education. The items wereopen-ended for respondents to write down the main languages used.

The language attitudes section was adapted from Ting and Puah (2015) whocompared attitudes towards Foochow/Hokkien and Mandarin. Their questionnairewas adapted from Baker (1992), Fasold (1984), Guerini (2008), Hohenthal (1998),and Fishman (1977). The Cronbach Alpha values for Ting and Puah’s (2015) ques-tionnaires given to Foochow and Hokkien respondents are 0.795 and 0.801 respec-tively, showing the internal consistency or reliability of language attitudes items. The



Table 2. Demographic characteristics of Iban participants

Demographic characteristic Frequency Percentage

Gender Female 112 56Male 88 44

Age Below 21 years 75 37.521–30 49 24.531–40 27 13.541–50 16 851–60 20 1061 and above 13 6.5

Occupation Not working 19 9.5Student 95 47.5Working 86 43

Marital status Single 108 55.1(n=196)* Married 88 44.9

Father’s ethnic group Iban 189 94.5Malay 2 1Chinese 5 2.5Other Sarawak Indigenous 3 1.5

Mother’s ethnic group Iban 192 96Chinese 3 1.5Other Sarawak Indigenous 5 2.5

Spouse’s ethnic group Iban 81 88.1(n=92)* Chinese 1 1.1

Other Sarawak Indigenous 8 8.7Sabah Indigenous 2 2.1

Education level Primary 6 or lower 29 14.5Form 3 48 24.0Form 5 69 34.5Form 6 17 8.5University 37 18.5

Note: * Denotes total below 200 because some respondents did not respond to the item.The number of married respondents and spouses do not tally as some of their spousescould have passed away.

items were the same except for mention of the language in the items (“Foochow” or“Hokkien” in the Foochow and Hokkien questionnaires, respectively). The aspects oflanguage attitudes studied were use of the Iban language, social status of Iban speak-ers, prestige value of the Iban language, pride/shame of Iban identity, instrumentalvalue of the Iban language, and intergenerational transmission of the Iban language.The adapted language attitudes section had 31 Likert-scale items ranging from 1 for



Strongly Disagree through 3 for Neutral to 5 for Strongly Agree. The questionnairewas prepared in Malay as more people understand Malay than English.

4.3 Data collection and analysis procedures The second researcher, who is an Ibanwho grew up and lived in Song, distributed the questionnaires in the Song district, go-ing to both longhouses and town areas. In the longhouses, he looked for the villagehead, explained the study, and sought his permission for the study to be conducted.When verbal consent was obtained, the second researcher approached longhouse res-idents. He explained the purpose of the study, assured them of the confidentialityof responses, and informed them of their voluntary participation. Once he had theirverbal consent, he gave them the questionnaire to fill in.

For respondents who could not read, particularly the older villagers, he read outthe items to them and wrote down their responses. In the town area, the secondresearcher went to markets, coffee shops, housing areas, schools, private companies,and government departments (e.g, district office, information department, police sta-tion, clinic). For schools and offices, permission was sought from the head of depart-ment before approaching the respondents. An unavoidable limitation of studyingself-reported language attitudes using questionnaires is the observer’s paradox wherethe respondents give more socially acceptable answers. A total of 230 questionnaireswere distributed, and 200 were returned (86.96% response rate).

The questionnaire data were keyed into an Excel sheet. For the language useitems, frequencies and percentages were computed. For the language attitudes items,means and standard deviations were calculated. The six aspects of language attitudeswere categorised under the three structural factors of ethnolinguistic vitality to showthe respondents’ subjective perception of the vitality of the Iban language: (1) de-mographic variables (use of the Iban language), (2) institutional support variables(instrumental value of the Iban language, and intergenerational transmission of theIban language), and (3) status variables (status of Iban speakers, the Iban language,and Iban identity). The justification of the categorisation is provided in the resultssection. In addition to the descriptive statistics, inferential statistical tests (t-test andcorrelational tests) and the results are reported in §5.4.

5. Results and discussion In this section, descriptive statistics are used to show thepatterns of language use and attitudes of the Iban respondents.

5.1 Ethnic background and first language of respondents’ parents and spouse Theanalysis showed that all Iban respondents speak Iban as their first language, but 1–2%of their relatives who are not Iban also speak the Iban language as their first language(Table 3). Some of their fathers speak Iban as their first language although they arenot Iban by descent; 189 fathers are Iban but 191 of them speak the Iban language.The same pattern is observed for the respondents’ mothers: 192 mothers are Ibanbut 196 speak the Iban language. However, four respondents’ relatives who are Ibanhave adopted Malay as their first language: one mother and three spouses. The



results suggest that the numerical dominance of Iban people in Song made otherethnic groups adopt the Iban language as their first language. Although these resultsare suggestive, they are confirmed by Ting and Campbell’s (2007) finding that Ibanpeople married to Bidayuh ensured that their children can speak the Iban language.

Table 3. Ethnic background and first language of respondents’ fathers, mothers, andspouses

Ethnic Father’s Father’s Mother’s Mother’s Spouse’s Spouse’sbackground/ ethnic first ethnic first ethnic firstFirst language background language background language background language

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Iban 94.5 95.5 96 98 88.1 90Malay 1 1.5 0 0.5 0 3.3Mandarin 2.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 1.1 1.1Other Sarawak 1.5 1 2.5 1 8.7 5.6IndigenousSabah Indigeneous 0 0 0 0 2.1 0

5.2 Language use in six domains Table 4 shows that the Iban language is the mainlanguage of communication in family, friendship, and transactions domains. In thefamily domain, the Iban language dominated (97.5% of 200 respondents). The largepercentage of respondents who reported the Iban language as the language of thefamily domain is expected because 94.5% and 96.0% of the respondents’ fathersand mothers are Iban, respectively (see Table 3). For the respondents who are adultsor elderly, the language they habitually used with their parents is usually the lan-guage they also use to speak to their children, siblings, and older relatives – even iftheir parents have passed away. The exception is when they marry someone whospeaks a different language, in which case the couple may not speak Iban with eachother. Whichever language they speak with each other is usually the one used withtheir children. The rest of the respondents speak Malay because 5% of respondentshave non-Iban parents who may not be conversant in the Iban language. Here, wehave linked the language use in the family domain to the parents’ ethnic background.Admittedly, this is an extrapolation but in Iban-dominant areas, there is a strong like-lihood of the Iban language being used in families where both parents are Iban. Interms of extensiveness of Iban usage, 97.5% of Iban respondents using Iban as thelanguage for family communication is a very high percentage at this point in timewhen there is so much language contact and inclination towards using languages ofwider communication. However, this high percentage is attainable in Song because itis an Iban dominant town where even non-Ibans speak the Iban language. This is thebenchmark to use for comparing language use among Ibans who have moved out ofthe Iban homeland to other areas.

In the friendship domain, the dominance of the Iban language decreases to 85.9%while Malay usage increases to 11.1%. Malay is often used with Chinese friendswhereas Sarawak Malay (3%) is used with Malays and those from other Sarawak



Indigenous groups who can speak Sarawak Malay. There are more Chinese living inSong (4.52%) than Malays (3.57%).

In the transactions domain, the Iban language is used more in markets (88%) thanin shops (82.8%). In markets, the buying and selling of fruits, vegetables, fish, andlivestock usually take place in the local language, which is the Iban language in thiscase because most of the vendors are Iban people. However, most of the shops areoperated by Chinese, some of whom cannot speak the Iban language. Since a majorityof the Iban cannot speak Chinese, they rely on Malay which most members of bothethnic groups can speak (10.1%). Surprisingly, only 1% of the respondents speakMandarin for transactions. Considering that 1.5% of respondents have a Chinesemother and 2.5% have a Chinese father, and only 1% of the Iban respondents speakChinese, this suggests that the Chinese parent may not be transmitting their ethniclanguage to their children (see Table 3).

Table 4. Frequency and percentages of langauges used by respondents in family, friend-ship, and transactions domains

Language/Domain Family FriendshipTransactions

Shops Market

Iban 195 (97.5%) 171 (85.9%) 164 (82.8%) 176 (88%)Malay 5 (2.5%) 22 (11.1%) 20 (10.1%) 11 (5.5%)Sarawak Malay 0 6 (3%) 11 (5.6%) 10 (5%)Mandarin 0 0 2 (1%) 2 (1%)English 0 0 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%)Bidayuh 0 0 1 0

Total 200 199* 199* 200

Note: *The total number is not 200 because one respondent did not fill in the items

A majority of the respondents (94.5%) reported using the Iban language in thereligious domain. Most of them are Christians, and it is not unexpected for the Ibanlanguage to be the main language for Christian worship because the Bible was trans-lated into Iban a long time ago. The practice in Song is to use the Iban languagefor prayers in church, but there are also church services conducted in English andMalay. The respondents also reported using other languages like English (3%) andMalay (1.5%) in the religious domain. Table 3 shows that two fathers are Malay.Therefore, the usage of Malay in the religious domain could be due to these twoMuslim respondents who prayed in Malay. In Malaysia, by law, all Malays are Mus-lim (Leinbach 2020). “In order for Muslims and non-Muslims to marry in Malaysia,the non-Muslim has to convert to Muslim before any marriage takes place in accor-dance to the Islamic Law” (UNHCR 2020). The comparison of these results withTable 4 shows that the percentage of the Iban language usage in the religious domain(94.5%) is higher than those among friends (85.9%), in shops (82.8%), and in themarket place (88%) but still lower than with family (97.5%).



Table 5. Frequency and percentages of languages used by respondents in religious,employment, and education domains

Language/Domain

ReligiousEmployment Education

Boss Colleague Subordinate Teacher Classmate

Iban 189 15 39 58 26 122(94.5%) (17.4%) (45.3%) (67.4%) (14.0%) (65.6%)

Malay 3 53 34 20 140 57(1.5%) (61.6%) (39.5%) (23.3%) (75.3%) (30.6%)

Sarawak 1 7 11 7 8 6Malay (0.5%) (8.1%) (12.8%) (8.1%) (4.3%) (3.2%)Dialect

English 6 11 2 1 12 1(3%) (12.8%) (2.3%) (1.2%) (6.4%) (0.5%)

Kayan 1 0 0 0 0 0(0.5%)

Total 200 86* 86* 86* 186* 186*

Note: *The total number is not 200 because some respondents are not working

The language use results for the employment domain are based on 86 respondentswho reported that they were working. Table 5 shows that more respondents speak theIban language with their subordinates (67.4%) than with colleagues at the same level(45.3%) or their bosses (17.4%). The Iban language usage decreases with the increaseof their colleagues’ position in the organisation, indicating that the Iban language isinappropriate for formal interactions. This is because many of the bosses are not Ibanand some are not from Sarawak and, therefore, cannot speak the Iban language. TheIban language is more suitable for use with colleagues in lower positions because mostof them are Ibans, and using a shared language facilitates work. The diminished useof the Iban language at higher levels is accompanied by an increase in usage of Malayand English which are “high languages”, compared to the Iban language deemed asa “low language”.

As for the education domain, Table 3 shows that only 95 respondents reportedthat they were students. However, Table 5 shows that 186 respondents answered thequestions on language use in the education domain; they could have provided theresponses based on the time they were in school. With teachers, a majority (75.3%)reported speaking Malay, the official language in school. Likely outside of the classtime, 14%of respondents speak the Iban language with their teachers. English (6.4%)and Sarawak Malay Dialect (4.3%) are other languages used with teachers, who maybe Chinese or Malay and unable to speak Iban. With classmates, the most frequently



used language is the Iban language (65.6%), followed by Malay (30.6%) which ismost likely spoken with classmates who are not Iban.

Figure 1. Functional differentiation into the Iban language as the “low language” andMalay as the “high language”

To sum up, the Iban language is the main language in each of the six domainsstudied, but the extensiveness of Iban language usage varies – giving way to Malayand English in education and employment domains, particularly in interactions withcolleagues in higher positions. Figure 1 shows the functional differentiation into theIban language as the “low language” and Malay as the “high language”. This hierar-chy is based on the language use data in this study. In the context of ethnolinguisticvitality, the respondents’ extensive use of the Iban language indicates strong vitalityin Song.

5.3 Attitudes towards Iban and other languages This section presents the languageattitudes results in the context of the three structural factors of ethnolinguistic vitality.The “mean score” refers to the average for individual items (e.g., M=4.24), whereasthe term “average mean” refers to an average taken of the mean scores for items ina particular component of language attitudes. The average means are bolded in thetables to differentiate them from the mean scores for the individual items, and theyare placed on the line that shows the name of the language attitudes components. Themean score for the 27 language attitudes items on the Iban language is 4.24 (SD=0.77)on a five-point Likert-scale. Seven items on other languages were excluded from thecalculation of mean scores for attitudes towards the Iban language (Table 6, Item 4;Table 7, Items 6, 8, and 10; Table 8, Items 22, 24, and 26).

5.3.1 Demographic variables The four items shown in Table 6 are indirectly basedon the size of the Iban population and, by extension, the number of Iban speakers.The respondents’ average mean for these four items showed that the Iban language isextensively used (average mean=4.23). This is because there are a lot of Iban speakers,and they speak it whenever they can. However, they also agreed that they speaklanguages other than the Iban language whenever they can – which is reasonablebecause they do not live in isolated Iban communities, but among other ethnic groups.



Their positive attitudes on the importance of the Iban language due to its wide usageconcur with language use results reported earlier (see Tables 3 & 4) whereby morethan 65%of the respondents used the Iban language in the six domains studied. In thecontext of ethnolinguistic vitality, the Iban language is high on demographic variablesand the respondents are very aware of the numerical dominance of their language.

Table 6. Respondents’ attitudes towards use of the Iban language

Items Mean SD

Use of the Iban language 4.23

1. I think Iban is an important language because it is widely used. 4.24 0.772. I think Iban is an important language because there are a lot ofIban speakers.

4.28 0.76

3. I use Iban whenever I can. 4.18 1.034. I use other languages whenever I can. 4.11* 0.74

Note: 1 for Strongly Disagree, 2 for Disagree, 3 for Neutral, 4 for Agree, 5 for StronglyAgree*Not included in the calculation of average mean as the item(s) are not on the Iban language

5.3.2 Institutional support variables Items 5 to 10 on the instrumental value of theIban language indirectly examine the perceived institutional support for the Iban lan-guage, that is, whether Iban speakers are accepted into (and therefore, representedin) institutions of higher learning, private companies, and government departments.Table 7 (Items 5, 7, 9) shows that the Iban language has instrumental value to therespondents (average mean=3.84), but they feel more positive about other languagesenabling them to do well in their studies, get a better job, and have a brighter future(Items 6, 8, 10). Nevertheless, the respondents believed that their ability to speak theIban language is useful for getting them into institutions of higher learning and gov-ernment departments. From the open-ended items on language use, it is clear that theother useful languages are Malay, SarawakMalay, and English. Malay is perceived tobe more useful than the Tinjal language for similar reasons: school success, securinggood jobs, and easing communication with government departments and the generalpopulation (Kijai, Lampadan, & Loo 2012). Tinjal is a Dusunic language in KotaBelud, located in Sabah (a Malaysian state north of Sarawak).

The Iban respondents strongly believe in the intergenerational transmission oftheir ethnic language (Items 11–13). While there is a strong belief in intergenera-tional transmission of Iban, there is also a belief that other languages can be helpfulfor their children’s studies (Item 12) and their future (Item 13). Table 7 shows thatthe respondents were positive (average mean=4.08) about wanting their children tospeak the Iban language so that it can help them to learn other languages later, do wellin their studies, and have a bright future. Evidence for this can be seen in Bidayuhmixed marriages where the Iban spouse ensures that the children can speak the Ibanlanguage (Ting & Campbell 2007). Undoubtedly, examining the instrumental valueof the Iban language is an indirect measure of perceived institutional support for the



Iban language. An alternative way is to ask direct questions about their views of in-stitutional support for the Iban language, such as the role of libraries and communitygroups in supporting the vitality of the language.

Table 7. Respondents’ attitudes towards institutional support for the Iban language

Items Mean SD

Instrumental value of the Iban language 3.84

5. My ability to speak Iban assures me in getting a better job. 3.67 0.856. My ability to speak other languages assures me in getting abetter job.

4.24* 0.83

7. My ability to speak Iban assures my success in the future. 4.01 0.858. My ability to speak other languages assures my success in thefuture.

4.25* 0.92

9. My ability to speak Iban assures my success in my studies. 3.85 0.7610. My ability to speak other languages assures my success in mystudies.

4.29* 0.76

Intergenerational transmission of the Iban language 4.08

11. Learning to speak Iban first will help my children to learnother languages better later.

4.22 0.79

12. I prefer to teach my children in Iban compared to otherlanguages, so that they can excel in their studies.

3.82 1.01

13. I prefer to teach my children in Iban compared to otherlanguages, so that they can have a better future.

3.81 1.06

Note: 1 for Strongly Disagree, 2 for Disagree, 3 for Neutral, 4 for Agree, 5 for StronglyDisagree*Not included in the calculation of average mean as the item(s) are not on the Iban language

5.3.3 Status variables The items on status of Iban speakers deal with three aspectsof status variables. Firstly, on the social status of Iban speakers, Table 8 (Items 14–15)shows that the Iban respondents somewhat agreed that the Iban language is an im-portant language because of its speakers (average mean=3.70). The Iban language isviewed as important because of its speakers who are educated and rich (M=3.73) orbecause of its speakers who have political influence (M=3.67). In other words, theyare not too confident in the social status of Iban speakers. Item 14, which assessed re-spondents’ attitudes to two different social variables (being educated and being rich)could have caused the responses to be conflated because respondents could have re-sponded to either one or both parts of the item. However, as the average mean is closeto four, the social status of Iban speakers is deemed to be high by the respondents.



Table 8. Respondents’ attitudes towards status of the Iban language

Items Mean SD

Social status of Iban speakers 3.70

14. I think Iban is an important language because Ibanspeakers are educated and rich.

3.73 0.70

15. I think Iban is an important language because Ibanspeakers are a politically powerful group.

3.67 0.94

Prestige value of the Iban language 3.59

16. I think Iban is a difficult language compared to otherlanguages.

3.36 0.89

17. I think Iban is a more flowery language than otherlanguages.

3.63 0.89

18. When I speak Iban, I am careful with thepronunciation so that it must be without other accents.

4.22 0.81

19. I think feelings and emotions can be expressed moreeffectively in Iban than in other languages.

3.84 0.78

20. I think specialised technical subjects can be expressedmore effectively in Iban than in other languages.

3.56 0.85

21. Other people think of Iban as a [low] high classlanguage.

[3.06] 2.94 R 1.33

Pride/Shame in Iban identity 4.18

22. I feel proud when I can speak other languages. 4.10* 0.7823. I feel embarrassed if I cannot speak Iban. 3.82 1.0624. I feel embarrassed if I cannot speak other languages. 3.63* 1.0425. I feel closer to other people when I speak Iban. 3.82 0.7226. I feel closer to other people when I speak otherlanguages.

3.48* 0.78

27. One cannot be considered an Iban if one doesn’t speakIban.

3.54 0.93

28. Speaking Iban is part of me as I am born as an Iban. 4.61 0.5929. I speak Iban to show that we belong to the same group. 4.46 0.7330. Speaking Iban is part of me as it symbolises myculture, heritage, and identity.

4.56 0.61

31. I prefer to speak Iban to my children since youngbecause it is our identity, culture, and root.

4.46 0.74

Note: 1 for Strongly Disagree, 2 for Disagree, 3 for Neutral, 4 for Agree, 5 for StronglyDisagree*Not included in the calculation of average mean as the item(s) are not on the Iban languageRReverse-coded. The original item and mean value are shown in square brackets.



The second status variable is the prestige value of the Iban language (Items 16–21).The respondents reported marginally positive attitudes towards the Iban language(average mean=3.59). They marginally agreed that the Iban language is difficult tolearn compared to other languages (Item 16). Contrary to the respondents’ view,some non-Ibans view the Iban language as an easy language to learn (Yapp & Abas2013) because of its similarity to the Malay language. The respondents also some-what agreed that the Iban language is a flowery language (Item 17). Most of therespondents agreed that they are careful when speaking the Iban language to makesure they keep the Iban accent (Item 18). Although the respondents are assumed tobe L1 speakers of Iban, a few of their fathers or mothers are not Iban. Therefore, itis relevant to pose a question on whether they are careful about keeping the L1 wayof pronouncing Iban words. Younger speakers may experience linguistic insecurityover proficiency in their ethnic language and may refrain from speaking the languageto avoid criticism from older speakers (Abtahian & Quinn 2017). The respondentsexpressed slightly more agreement that they can express their feelings and emotionsmore effectively using the Iban language than other languages (Item 19) but are not soconfident that the Iban language can be used effectively for handling technical subjectmatter (Item 20). This result concurs with the earlier language use results on the lessfrequent use of the Iban language in the employment and education domains. Therespondents slightly disagreed that the Iban language is perceived as a low class lan-guage (Item 21), and the variability in standard deviation shows that there are mixedopinions. After reverse coding, the mean for Item 21 (“Other people think of Ibanas a high class language”) is 2.94, which is slightly below the mid-point of three. Asa group, the Iban respondents marginally disagreed that Iban is perceived as a highclass language by other people. Therefore, it would appear that to some respondents,the Iban language lacks prestige value in comparison to standard languages whichhave status as a national and/or official language.

The third status variable is the pride or shame of being Iban. The respondentsfeel proud of their Iban identity (average mean=4.18). The pride is derived from theirability to speak the Iban language, but they are even more proud to be able to speakother languages. However, when the item was worded negatively as in whether theyfeel ashamed, the results showed that they are more ashamed if they cannot speak theIban language compared to other languages. Items 25–26 show that the respondentsfeel closer rapport with other people when speaking the Iban language (M=3.82)than when using other languages (M=3.48). Taken together, these results point to thethinking that an Iban must be able to speak the Iban language, but it is an advantageif they can speak other languages as well.

The association of the Iban language with the Iban identity was further exploredby using Fishman’s (1977) dimensions of ethnicity, categorised as paternity, patri-mony, and phemenology (Items 27–31). In the paternity dimension of ethnicity, theethnic language is considered an inherent part of an individual’s being. Table 8 showsthat the respondents strongly believe that speaking the Iban language is part of themas they are born as an Iban (M=4.61). The respondents who strongly held on to thepatrimonial view of ethnicity – the Iban language is spoken as a symbol of their mem-



bership in the Iban community – speak the Iban language to show that they belong tothe Iban group (M=4.46). They also strongly agreed that speaking the Iban languagesymbolises their culture, heritage, and identity (M=4.56). The strong Iban identity issummed up in the respondents’ strong preference to speak the Iban language to theirchildren from a young age because it is their identity, culture, and root (M=4.46). Therespondents’ pride in their Iban identity is a strong factor that supports the vitalityof their language.

On the basis of self-reported language attitudes results seen from the perspectiveof ethnolinguistic vitality, the Iban language has medium to strong subjective ethno-linguistic vitality. The vitality is termed as subjective ethnolinguistic vitality because itis from the perspective of the group. The Iban respondents in this study were positiveabout the wide usage of the Iban language (demographic variable); they believed thatthe ability to speak the Iban language is useful to give them and their children accessto institutions of higher learning and government departments (institutional supportvariable); and they have pride in the status of Iban speakers and the Iban identity(status variable). The only element of the status factor which is moderate is the pres-tige value of the Iban language in relation to other languages like Malay. Accordingto Giles et al. (1977), for groups that are evaluated as being high on some variablesbut low on others, the vitality of the group is considered medium. Since one elementof the status variable is medium for the Iban language, the subjective ethnolinguisticvitality of the language is deemed to be medium to high. In §3, the Iban language isassessed as having medium to high objective ethnolinguistic vitality. The vitality istermed as objective ethnolinguistic vitality when the assessment is made based on thesame three structural factors in the society: (1) the demographic variable based onthe Iban population in Sarawak; (2) the institutional support variable based on sup-port for the written use of the Iban language from the education, government, massmedia, religious bodies, and cultural associations; and (3) the status variable based onsociohistorical prestige, social status of prominent Iban people, estimated householdincome of Iban families, and the status of the Iban language in the Sarawak context.Both the subjective and objective assessment of the ethnolinguistic vitality concur toshow that the Iban language has medium to high vitality.

5.4 Relationship between attitudes towards Iban language, usage of Iban, and de-mographic variables Further analyses were conducted to identify factors that mayexamine language attitudes and language use to explain the vitality of the Iban lan-guage. For this purpose, the respondents’ responses to the 27 items on attitudes to-wards the Iban language (referred to as“language attitudes”), reports of Iban usage in10 situations in six selected domains (referred to as “Iban usage”), and demographicvariables (age, gender, education) were analysed. The quest to pinpoint factors thatinfluence language attitudes led to the identification of gender as a possible factor.

Pearson correlation tests showed that there were no significant relationships be-tween Iban usage, attitudes towards the Iban language, age, and education level atthe confidence level of 95% (Table 9). This is probably because of the similar re-sponses of the respondents on Iban language use and attitudes. Most of the respon-



dents reported frequent use of the Iban language in their daily life in about six out of10 situations examined (see Tables 4 & 5) and expressed positive attitudes towardsthe Iban language (see Tables 6–8). Some researchers have reported that the usageof other Sarawak Indigenous languages decreases with an increase in age (Coluzzi2010; Coluzzi, Riget, & Wang 2013; Wan, Renganathan, & Philip 2015), but theseconclusions were drawn on the basis of descriptive results for language use in differ-ent generations.

Table 9. Pearson correlation test results

Age Education level Iban language use Iban languageattitudes

Age – – – –Education level – – – –Iban language use -.08 -.009 – –Iban language .109 .100 .116 –attitudes

Finally, independent t-tests showed that there were significant gender differencesin Iban usage, t(198) = 1.987, p = .048, with males (M=6.00, SD=1.612) attaininghigher scores than females (M=5.60, SD=1.248). The mean values suggest that malerespondents speak the Iban language in slightly more situations than female respon-dents. This result is similar to Rubin (1972) and Gynan (2005) who reported thatmen in Paraguay tend to use Guarani whereas women tend to use Spanish. Womenare more likely to speak the standard language than men.

Further, the independent t-tests showed that there were no significant genderdifferences in attitudes towards the Iban language, t(198) = .314, p = .718, withmales (M=105.66, SD=10.309) obtaining higher scores than females (M=105.21,SD=9.675). Similarly, other research in Malaysia on the Chinese has also foundno gender difference in language attitudes. In Puah and Ting’s (2015) study usingmatched guise technique (an indirect measure of language attitudes), the female andmale Foochow and Hokkien respondents in Sarawak did not differ in their languageattitudes, but their socio-economic status and age had significant effects. Neverthe-less, researchers in other countries have found more favourable language attitudesamong females than males. In Altakhaineh & Rahrouh’s (2017) study on Emirati na-tionals, both females and males feel proud of the Emirati Arabic dialect, but more fe-males believed that they are more proficient speakers of the dialect thanmales becausethey socialise mainly with other Emiratis whereas men go out to work and socialisewith people whomay speak other languages. In Henderson,Wilson,&Wood’s (2020)study on language attitudes toward Spanish as a heritage language, female studentswere found to have more positive attitudes than male students. Stanford’s (2016)review of variationist research findings surmised that men were acquiring urbanised,standardising features more quickly than women because of more interactions withpeople speaking other languages outside the home domain. However, in the presentstudy, none of the demographic variables influenced Iban language attitudes.



To sum up, the only demographic variable that influences Iban usage is gender,but male and female Iban respondents do not differ in their Iban language attitudes.Iban language use and attitudes are also not correlated.

6. Conclusion In this study, we adopted an interdisciplinary perspective by view-ing language use and attitudes from the perspective of social psychology. The usualsociolinguistic information about the language use and attitudes of an ethnic groupwas evaluated to determine the objective and subjective ethnolinguistic vitality of theIban language, an ethnic group whose language use has been neglected because ofthe assumption that they are numerically dominant and therefore safe from languageshift. The survey of Iban respondents in Song, an Iban dominant town in Sarawak,yielded four key results.

Firstly, the Iban language dominates in family, friendship, transactions, religious,employment, and education domains. However, up to 75% of the respondents spokeMalay in the education and employment domains, particularly with individuals inhigher positions. Alternative languages to Iban in domains involving interactionswith non-Ibans are Sarawak Malay (up to 12.8%), English (up to 12.8%) and Man-darin (1%). The language use patterns show functional differentiation into the Ibanlanguage as the “low language” and Malay as the “high language”. An indicator ofimminent language shift is the reduction of functional domains once occupied by eth-nic languages and the disappearance of strict domain separation (Tsunoda 2005). Inan isolated Manang district of Nepal, Hildebrant & Hu’s (2017) study showed thatthe villagers have a strong ethnic identity, but the construction of a road linking themto the rest of the world is changing social spaces in which the local languages arespoken. Incidentally, Song now has a road that connects all the way to Kuching, thecapital of Sarawak. Until now, Song has only been accessible by express boats via theRejang River. The road was completed in October 2020 (Chua, 2020). The easy ac-cessibility to the other towns will create more mobility and intergroup contact, whichmay hasten the reduction of functional domains occupied by the Iban language, par-ticularly in the friendship and transactions domain (markets and shops) because thesetwo domains are already seeing a rise in the usage of Malay and Sarawak Malay.

Secondly, for language attitudes, the results show positive attitudes towards theIban language. The dimensions of language attitudes that are strongly positive are:use of Iban, Iban identity, and intergenerational transmission of the Iban language.The marginally positive dimensions are instrumental use of the Iban language, socialstatus of Iban speakers, and prestige value of the Iban language. In this study, wetook a different approach to interpret the language attitudes results in the context ofGiles et al.’s (1977) taxonomy of ethnolinguistic vitality to determine the subjectiveethnolinguistic vitality from the perspective of the Iban respondents and found thevitality to be medium to high. The high vitality is derived from the Iban respondents’belief in the wide usage of the Iban language (demographic variable), the instrumen-tal value of the Iban language in giving them and their children access to institutionsof higher learning and government departments (institutional support variable), andtheir pride in the status of Iban speakers and the Iban identity (status variable). The



only element of the status variable that subtracts from the high subjective vitality isthe relatively low prestige value of the Iban language in relation to other languageslike Malay. The objective ethnolinguistic vitality of the Iban language was also as-sessed as medium to high based on our assessment of the same three variables forthe Iban group in the societal context. The high objective vitality was derived fromthe Iban group being the largest ethnic group in Sarawak (demographic variable),support for written use of the Iban language from the education, government, massmedia, religious bodies, and cultural associations (institutional support variable), andthe sociohistorical prestige, social status of prominent Iban people, and status of theIban language in the Sarawak context (status variable). For objective ethnolinguisticvitality, the only element of the status variable that subtracts from the high objectivevitality is the low income of a majority of the Iban people (King 1986; Ting 2012;Aung et al., 2018). Although the elements that subtract from the assessment of highethnolinguistic vitality from the subjective and objective assessment differ, the finaloutcome is medium to high vitality based on both assessments.

A new finding from the present study is that there is no relationship betweenattitudes towards the Iban language and Iban usage. While the Iban respondentsprofess positive attitudes towards their ethnic language (4.24 out of 5), they onlyspeak Iban in five to six situations out of 10 situations examined. This shows thelimited functions of Iban as a low language, existing together with Malay as a highlanguage. Similar findings were obtained by Ting and Rose (2014) from their surveyof 568 adolescents from 12 indigenous groups in Sarawak. Their findings showedthat ethnic language usage and ethnic identity were not correlated. The indigenousadolescents’ attitudes were positive (2.95–3.36 out of 4) but their ethnic language useranged greatly from 0% to 57.71%. However, Iban usage was slightly higher amongthe males than the females in Song, suggesting that the mothers may lead the shiftaway from Iban in future.

This study has offered a new perspective on language shift by assessing the ob-jective and subjective ethnolinguistic vitality, revealing that a numerically dominantgroup assumed to be safe from language shift has medium to high vitality. The find-ings are important for academic inquiry into language shift, as well as for organisa-tions interested in protecting Iban heritage to strengthen the informal institutionalsupport for the Iban language and for the Iban community to consider social engi-neering to improve perceptions of the prestige value of the Iban language. In addition,prominent Iban politicians and societal figures can also lobby the government to putin place development planning to improve the livelihood of those in the agriculturalsector so that rural poverty can be alleviated. Admittedly, the findings are based ona study in one locality, tapping into a group that is “strongly Iban”. Future studiesare needed to verify whether the low prestige value of the Iban language and the loweconomic status of the Iban people are factors that are perceived to be detrimental tothe vitality of the Iban language. Another area for future research is the language dy-namics of Ibans living in Iban-dominant areas who shift to other languages becausethey are an exception to the norm. These investigations could be the way forward to



identifying“cracks in the system”that may lead to shifts away from the Iban languagein the future and plug the gap in our knowledge of language shift and maintenance.

Data Availability The data used to support the findings of this study are availablefrom the corresponding author upon request.

Funding This work was funded by Universiti Malaysia Sarawak via Dana Penye-lidikan Khas UNIMAS [Special Research Grant UNIMAS] awarded to a project on“Predictive model of intergenerational transmission of ethnic language”. Grant No.:DPK/05/2010.

References

Abtahian, Maya Ravindranath & Connor McDonough Quinn. 2017. Language shiftand linguistic insecurity. In Hildebrandt, Kristine A., Carmen Jany, & Wilson Silva(eds.), Documenting variation in endangered languages (Language Documentation&Conservation Special Publication 13), 137–151.Honolulu: University of Hawai‘iPress. (https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/24752)

Adelaar, K. Alexander. 2004. Where does Malay come from? Twenty years of discus-sions about homeland, migrations and classifications.Bijdragen tot de taal-, land-envolkenkunde – Journal of the Humanities& Social Sciences of SoutheastAsia 160(1).1–30.

Altakhaineh,Abdel RahmanMitib&Hanan Raef Rahrouh. 2017. Language attitudes:Emirati perspectives on the Emirati dialect of Arabic according to age and gender.The Social Sciences 12(8). 1434–1439.

Aravossitas, Themistoklis. 2020. Vitality of heritage languages and education: Thecase of modern Greek in Canada. In Trifonas, Peter Pericles (ed.), Handbook oftheory and research in cultural studies and education, 159–178.NewYork: Springer.

Aung, Aye Aye, Abdul Rahim Abdullah, T. Arnold, & Noornajwa Nabilah Ya-timan. 2018. Satisfaction on clinic services among rural Iban community inDurin, Sibu, Sarawak. Community Medicine & Public Health Bulletin 5. 8–15.(http://www.fmhs.unimas.my/images/downloads/CMPH_bulletin_5.pdf)

Baker, Colin. 1992.Attitudes and language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Berma, Madeline. 2008. Beyond rumah panjai: Iban women and migration in Kapit

division. (Paper presented at Borneo Research Council 9th Biennial InternationalConference, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, 28–30 July 2008.)

CEIC Data. 2020. Malaysia education statistics: Enrolment rate & numberof schools. (https://www.ceicdata.com/en/malaysia/education-statistics-enrolment-rate–number-of-schools) (Accessed 2020-07-06.)

Cheng, Lian. 2016. OO...HA is traditionally an Iban call to celebration. TheBorneo Post, February 6. (https://www.theborneopost.com/2016/02/06/ooha-is-traditionally-an-iban-call-to-celebration/) (Accessed 2020-07-06.)


https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/24752

http://www.fmhs.unimas.my/images/downloads/CMPH_bulletin_5.pdf

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/malaysia/education-statistics-enrolment-rate--number-of-schools

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/malaysia/education-statistics-enrolment-rate--number-of-schools

https://www.theborneopost.com/2016/02/06/ooha-is-traditionally-an-iban-call-to-celebration/

https://www.theborneopost.com/2016/02/06/ooha-is-traditionally-an-iban-call-to-celebration/


Chua, A. 2020. 120km link road to shorten travel time between Kapit and Song. TheStar, October 4. (https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2020/10/04/120km-link-road-to-shorten-travel-time-between-kapit-and-song) (Accessed 2021-03-03.)

Coluzzi, Paolo. 2010. Endangered languages in Borneo: A survey among the Iban andMurut (Lun Bawang) in Temburung, Brunei.Oceanic Linguistics 49(1). 119–143.

Coluzzi, Paolo, Patricia Nora Riget, & XiaomeiWang. 2013. Language vitality amongthe Bidayuh of Sarawak (East Malaysia).Oceanic Linguistics 52(2). 375–395.

Cramb, Robert A. 1979. A farm plan for the proposed Batang Ai resettlement area.Kuching, Malaysia: Department of Agriculture, Planning Division, Report No. 32.

Cramb,RobertA.& J.Dian. 1979.A social and economic survey of the Julau extensionregion. Kuching, Malaysia: Department of Agriculture, Planning Division, ReportNo. 3.

Cullip, Peter Francis. 2000. Language use and attitudes of the Remun of Sarawak:Initial explorations. Sarawak Museum Journal 76 (New Series). 1–43.

David, Maya Khemlani & Ceasar Dealwis. 2008. Why shift? Focus on Sabah andSarawak. Suvremena Lingvistika 66. 261–276.

Dealwis, Ceasar. 2008.Language choice amongDayak Bidayuh undergraduates.KualaLumpur, Malaysia: Universiti Malaya. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation.)

DOSM (Department of Statistics, Malaysia). 2014. Quick population info.(http://pqi.stats.gov.my/result.php?token=1abc311db311727fab12f5d0249bcd1d)

DOSM (Department of Statistics, Malaysia). 2017a. Sarawak population by dis-trict 2017. (https://data.sarawak.gov.my/home/data/resource/d8336af5-4667-463f-aa61-441edad63d08)

DOSM (Department of Statistics, Malaysia). 2017b.Report of household income andbasic amenities survey 2016. (https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=colum-n/pdfPrev&id=RUZ5REwveU1ra1hGL21JWVlPRmU2Zz09)

Fasold, Ralph. 1984. The sociolinguistics of society. Oxford: Blackwell.Fishman, Joshua A. 1972. The sociology of language. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Fishman, Joshua A. 1977. Language and ethnicity. In Giles, Howard (ed.), Language,ethnicity and intergroup relations,15–58. London: Academic Press.

Giles, Howard, Richard Y. Bourhis, & Donald M. Taylor. 1977. Towards a theory oflanguage in ethnic group relations. In Giles, Howard (ed.), Language, ethnicity andintergroup relations, 307–348. London: Academic Press.

Guerini, Federica. 2008. Multilingualism and language attitudes in Ghana: A prelimi-nary survey. In Proceedings of 6th International Symposium on Bilingualism (ISB6),1–33. University of Hamburg.

Gynan, Shaw N. 2005. Official bilingualism in Paraguay, 1995–2001: An analysis ofthe impact of language policy on attitudinal change. In Sayahi, Lofti & MauriceWestmoreland (eds.), Selected proceedings of the Second Workshop on Spanish So-ciolinguistics, 24–40. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Henderson, Mary Hudgens, Damián Vergara Wilson, & Michael R. Woods. 2020.How course level, gender, and ethnic identity labels interact with language attitudestowards Spanish as a heritage language.Hispania 103(1). 27–42.


https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2020/10/04/120km-link-road-to-shorten-travel-time-between-kapit-and-song

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2020/10/04/120km-link-road-to-shorten-travel-time-between-kapit-and-song

http://pqi.stats.gov.my/result.php?token=1abc311db311727fab12f5d0249bcd1d

https://data.sarawak.gov.my/home/data/resource/d8336af5-4667-463f-aa61-441edad63d08

https://data.sarawak.gov.my/home/data/resource/d8336af5-4667-463f-aa61-441edad63d08

https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/pdfPrev&id=RUZ5REwveU1ra1hGL21JWVlPRmU2Zz09

https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/pdfPrev&id=RUZ5REwveU1ra1hGL21JWVlPRmU2Zz09


Hildebrandt, Kristine A. & Shunfu Hu. 2017. Areal analysis of language attitudes andpractices: A case study fromNepal. InHildebrandt, KristineA., Carmen Jany,&Wil-son Silva (eds.), Documenting variation in endangered languages (Language Docu-mentation & Conservation Special Publication 13), 152–179. Honolulu: Universityof Hawai‘i Press. (https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/24753)

Hohenthal, Annika. 1998. English in India: A study of language attitudes. Turku: Uni-versity of Turku. (Unpublished pro thesis.)

Holmes, Janet. 1992.An introduction to sociolinguistics. London: Longman.Janggang. 2011. Iban heroes. Iban Customs & Traditions. (https://ibancustoms.word-

press.com/iban-heroes/) (Accessed 2020-07-06.)Joan, Amee & Su-Hie Ting. 2016. Hierarchies of language status: Of Kejaman, Iban,

Malay and English. In Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Social Sci-ences Research.

Joan, Amee & Su-Hie Ting. 2017. Influence of social network on language use ofKejaman speakers in Sarawak, Malaysia.Oceanic Linguistics 56(1). 22–41.

Kijai, Jimmy,R. Lampadan,&Daren Benjaman Loo. 2012. Factors related to languageshift among the Tindal population in Ratau, Kota Belud, Sabah.Catalyst 7(1). 4–13.

King, Victor T. 1986. Land settlement schemes and the alleviation of rural povertyin Sarawak, East Malaysia: A critical commentary. Asian Journal of Social Science14(1). 71–99.

Leinbach, Thomas R. 2020. Malaysia: Religion. Encyclopædia Britannica.(https://www.britannica.com/place/Malaysia/Religion) (Accessed 2020-13-09.)

Lewis, M. Paul & Gary F. Simons. 2010. Assessing endangerment: Ex-panding Fishman’s GIDS. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 55(2). 103–120.(http://www.lingv.ro/resources/scm_images/RRL-02-2010-Lewis.pdf)

Majlis Adat Istiadat Sarawak. 2020. Background. Council for Customs and Tradi-tions. (https://nativecustoms.sarawak.gov.my/page-0-42-42-Background.html) (Ac-cessed 2020-07-06.)

Mohamed,Noriah. 1991. Penggunaan bahasa dalam komuniti Melayu Iban di Betong,Sarawak: Satu kajian etnososiolinguistik [Languge use in Iban Malay communityin Betong, Sarawak: An ethnosociolinguistic study]. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Uni-versiti Malaya. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation.)

Mohamed, Noriah & Nor Hashimah Hashim. 2012. Language vitality of the Sihancommunity in Sarawak. Kemanusiaan 19(1). 59–86.

Norahim, Norazuna. 2010. Language choice of Bidayuh graduates in Kuching-Samarahan Division. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Universiti Malaya. (Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation.)

Philip, Bromeley. 2017. Trajectories in the development of the Iban Language ofSarawak: In retrospect and looking beyond. In Unting, N. T. E. & N. Belawing(eds.), International Conference on Iban Language and Ethnography (ICILE 2017):“Ngenegapka Jaku EnggauDaya Idup Iban”, 72–85.Miri: Institut Pendidikan GuruKampus Sarawak.



https://ibancustoms.wordpress.com/iban-heroes/

https://ibancustoms.wordpress.com/iban-heroes/

https://www.britannica.com/place/Malaysia/Religion

http://www.lingv.ro/resources/scm_images/RRL-02-2010-Lewis.pdf

https://nativecustoms.sarawak.gov.my/page-0-42-42-Background.html


Puah, Yann-Yann & Su-Hie Ting. 2013. Home ground notions influencing Foochowand Hokkien speakers’ language use in Kuching, Sarawak. (Paper presented at Kon-ferensi Antar Universiti Se Borneo-Kalimantan ke-7 (KABOKA), Kota Samarahan,Malaysia, 19–21 November 2013.)

Puah, Yann-Yann & Su-Hie Ting. 2015. Malaysian Chinese speakers’ attitudes to-wards Foochow, Hokkien and Mandarin. Journal of Multilingual & MulticulturalDevelopment 36(5). 451–467.

Rubin, Joan. 1972. Bilingual usage in Paraguay. In Fishman, Joshua A. (ed.), Readingsin the sociology of language, 512–530. The Hague: De Gruyter Mouton.

Saleh, Robert Menua. 2008. Cultural practices and tradition among Iban migrants inKapit, Sarawak. (Paper presented at Borneo Research Council 9th Biennial Interna-tional Conference, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, 28–30 July 2008.)

SCB (Sarawak Convention Bureau). 2020. Untold stories from the rainforest.(http://businesseventssarawak.com/media/2016/10/27/warriors-at-heart-the-iban-clan/http://businesseventssarawak.com/media/2016/10/27/warriors-at-heart-the-iban-clan/) (Accessed 2020-07-06.)

Sebli, Lucy. 2008. Iban Bejalai: Its effect on Iban in contemporary Sarawak. (Paperpresented at Borneo Research Council 9th Biennial International Conference, KotaKinabalu, Malaysia, 28–30 July 2008.)

Sosiowati, I. Gusti Ayu Gde, I. Wayan Arka, I. Nyoman Aryawibawa, & Ni MadeAyu Widiastuti. 2019. Domain change and ethnolinguistic vitality: Evidence fromthe fishing lexicon of Loloan Malay. Language Documentation & Conservation 13.586–617. (https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/24913)

Stanford, James N. 2016. A call for more diverse sources of data: Variationist ap-proaches in non-English contexts. Journal of Sociolinguistics 20(4). 525–541.

Tambi, Mohd. Zainal Abidin Mohd. et al. 1982. A socio-economic survey of theKalaka-Saribas Districts, Sarawak (A base line study). Bintulu, Sarawak, Malaysia:Universiti Pertanian Malaysia.

Ting, Su-Hie. 2010. Impact of language planning on language choice in friendship andtransaction domains in Sarawak, Malaysia. Current Issues in Language Planning11(4). 397–412. doi:10.1080/14664208.2010.545573

Ting, Su-Hie. 2012. Variable impact of Malaysia’s national language planning onnon-Malay speakers in Sarawak. Revista Brasileira de Linguistica Aplicada 12(2).381–403.

Ting, Su-Hie. 2017. Language choices of CEOs of Chinese family business in Sarawak,Malaysia. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development 38(4). 360–371.

Ting, Su-Hie & Felicia Tensing. 2010. Focal points of grammar teaching in secondaryschool Iban textbooks. (Paper presented at Biennial Borneo Research Council (BRC2010) International Conference, Miri, Malaysia, 5–7 July 2010.)

Ting, Su-Hie & Louis Rose. 2014. Ethnic language use and ethnic identity for Sarawakindigenous groups in Malaysia.Oceanic Linguistics 53(1). 92–109.

Ting, Su-Hie & Mahanita Mahadhir. 2009. Towards homogeneity in home languages.Australian Review of Applied Linguistics (ARAL) 32(2). 11.1–11.22.



https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2010.545573


Ting, Su-Hie & Roland Sussex. 2002. Language choice among the Foochows inSarawak, Malaysia.Multilingua 21. 1–15.

Ting, Su-Hie & Teck-Yee Ling. 2012. Language use and sustainability status of in-digenous languages in Sarawak, Malaysia. Journal of Multilingual & MulticulturalDevelopment 33(6). 1–17. doi:10.1080/01434632.2012.706301

Ting, Su-Hie & Yann-Yann Puah. 2015. Sociocultural traits and language attitudes ofChinese Foochow and Hokkien in Malaysia. 25(1). 117–140.

Ting, Su-Hie & Yu-Ling Hung. 2008. Mothers and mother tongue: Their role in pro-moting Foochow to their children. (Paper presented at 6th International MalaysianStudies Conference (MSC6), Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, 5–7 August 2008.)

Ting, Su-Hie & Yvonne Michelle Campbell. 2007. Bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasakomunikasi keluarga: Kajian kes sebuah keluarga Bidayuh di Sarawak [BahasaMelayu as a language of family communication: Case study of a Bidayuh familyin Sarawak]. In Jalaluddin, Nor Hashimah, Imran Ho Abdullah, & Idris Aman(eds.), Linguistik teori dan aplikasi [Linguistics theory and application], 278–293.Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Ting, Su-Hie & Yvonne Michelle Campbell. 2017. The role of indigenous languagesin schools: The case of Sarawak. In Samuel, Moses, Meng-Yew Tee, & LorraineP. Symaco (eds.), Education in Malaysia: Development and challenges, 119–136.Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

Tsunoda, Tasaka. 2005. Language endangerment and language revitalization. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.

Tun Jugah Foundation. 2014. Textile, museum & gallery. (http://tunjugahfounda-tion.org.my/textile-museum-gallery/) (Accessed 2020-07-06).

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2020. Support in devel-oping national B40 action plan using innovative bottom-up approaches.(https://www.my.undp.org/content/malaysia/en/home/operations/project-s/poverty_reduction/support-in-developing-national-b40-action-plan-using-innovative-.html#: :text=The%20B40%20are%20measured%20as,median%20in-come%20of%20RM2%2C629) (Accessed 2020-07-06.)

UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). 2020. Malaysia: In-formation on whether it is legal for a Muslim and non-Muslim to marry in acivil ceremony or whether the non-Muslim must convert to Islam in the case of amixed marriage. (https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6ab2757.html#:∼:text=The-%20source%20stated%20that%20it,Islam%20in%20order%20to%20marry.&-text=The%20non%2DMuslim%20has%20the,married%20under%20the%20Is-lamic%20Law) (Accessed 2007-09-13.)

Wan, Roselind, Sumathi Renganathan, & Bromeley Philip. 2015. What is the pointof us talking? Ethnic language and ethnic identity in Northern Borneo, Malaysia.Humanities & Social Sciences Review 4(1). 109–120.

Wan, Roselind, Sumathi Renganathan, & Ding-Hooi Ting. 2014. Kayan ka do? Lan-guage and identity: A case study on the perception of the Uma Beluvuh Kayan ontheir ethnic language. In Proceedings of 2014 International Conference on Human-ities and Social Sciences (ICHSS2014).


://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.706301

http://tunjugahfoundation.org.my/textile-museum-gallery/

http://tunjugahfoundation.org.my/textile-museum-gallery/

https://www.my.undp.org/content/malaysia/en/home/operations/projects/poverty_reduction/support-in-developing-national-b40-action-plan-using-innovative-.html#:~:text=The%20B40%20are%20measured%20as,median%20income%20of%20RM2%2C629




https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6ab2757.html#:~:text=The%20source%20stated%20that%20it,Islam%20in%20order%20to%20marry.&text=The%20non%2DMuslim%20has%20the,married%20under%20the%20Islamic%20Law





Yapp,Aloysius &Anita MorahAbas. 2013.The ethnic identity of Sino-Iban in SaribasRiver andMarup Sino-Iban, Borneo Sarawak. (Paper presented at International Con-ference of ISCCO8 (The International Society for the Study of Chinese Overseas),Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 18 August 2013.) doi:10.2139/ssrn.2342029

Su-Hie [email protected]


https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2342029

mailto:[email protected]


App

endix1.

Distributionof

theIban

peop

lethroug

hout

thestateof

Sarawak

District

Total

Malaysian

Non

-Malaysian

Malay

Iban

Bidayuh

Melan

auOther

Chine

seIndian

s+

Percen

tage

Popu

lation

Citizen

Citizen

Iban

Indigeno

usOthers

ofIban

Kuc

hing

684,90

067

0,30

014

,600

247,70

075

,300

83,600

4,60

09,60

024

4,30

05,20

010

.99

Bau

60,000

58,200

1,80

04,70

01,60

040

,900

100

500

10,200

200

2.67

Lun

du37

,600

35,600

2,10

012

,900

5,00

013

,200

100

300

3,90

010

013

.30

Samar

ahan

98,400

97,200

1,20

047

,500

20,900

6,50

090

02,40

018

,200

700

21.24

Simun

jan

44,700

42,900

1,80

023

,600

17,000

400

100

300

1,40

010

038

.03

Asa

jaya

36,100

35,700

400

30,100

2,90

020

010

010

02,30

010

08.03

Serian

101,80

099

,100

2,60

012

,600

16,700

59,400

200

700

9,10

050

016

.40

SriA

man

74,900

74,000

1,00

019

,100

43,800

500

200

500

9,60

020

058

.48

Lub

okAnt

u31

,700

31,100

500

900

27,700

200

020

01,90

020

087

.38

Beton

g70

,200

69,300

900

41,400

24,400

200

200

300

2,60

020

034

.76

Sara

tok

52,000

51,500

500

20,700

26,900

300

200

200

3,10

010

051

.73

Sarike

i64

,800

62,900

1,90

010

,700

21,400

600

4,70

080

024

,200

500

33.02

Mar

adon

g33

,300

31,600

1,80

05,10

014

,100

300

1,80

040

09,70

020

042

.34

Julau

17,900

17,800

100

300

16,600

100

100

100

500

092

.74

Paka

n17

,600

17,500

200

200

16,500

100

100

200

300

100

93.75

Sibu

277,70

025

6,40

021

,300

28,000

77,800

2,00

016

,800

3,90

012

6,00

01,80

028

.02

Kan

owit

32,800

32,200

500

1,30

026

,900

100

300

300

3,10

020

082

.01

Selang

au26

,100

24,600

1,50

070

022

,100

100

300

300

1,00

010

084

.67

Muk

ah49

,900

44,200

5,70

03,30

013

,700

400

20,900

1,70

03,90

020

027

.45

Dalat

22,100

21,600

400

600

1,80

010

016

,900

800

1,40

010

08.14

Matu

20,300

19,500

700

700

3,10

010

014

,300

600

600

100

15.27

Dar

o36

,000

32,800

3,20

02,60

04,20

010

024

,400

600

800

100

11.67

Bintu

lu22

0,00

017

8,10

041

,900

22,900

83,700

2,50

020

,200

13,300

34,500

1,10

038

.05

Tatau

35,400

29,400

6,00

01,10

020

,900

200

1,80

03,50

01,70

020

059

.04

Kap

it63

,000

62,000

1,00

02,40

051

,500

300

900

2,50

04,20

020

081

.75

Song

23,400

23,100

300

800

20,400

100

200

300

1,00

020

087

.18

Belag

a42

,500

34,900

7,60

01,00

04,40

020

030

027

,100

1,60

020

010

.35

Miri

342,80

030

1,90

040

,900

61,500

98,700

4,20

010

,700

37,000

87,300

2,60

028

.79

Mar

udi

73,500

67,100

6,30

05,30

022

,700

400

300

33,500

4,50

030

030

.88

Lim

bang

54,400

52,800

1,60

014

,900

13,700

400

300

15,900

7,20

030

025

.18

Law

as44

,000

40,900

3,10

014

,700

1,20

010

030

020

,700

3,60

020

02.73

Not

e:Statistics

are“n

otav

ailable”

forTe

bedu

,Pus

a,Kab

ong,

Tanjun

gM

anis,S

ebau

h,Buk

itM

abon

g,Su

bis,

Belur

u,Te

lang

Usa

n(Sou

rce:

DOSM

2017

a)


language use and attitudes as indicators of subjective

Documents